PERSPECTIVE ON REFUGEES : Cuba, Haiti: Racism or Hypocrisy? : Cubans and Haitians arrive in the same boat but only one group is detained; U.S. policy is dreadfully wrong.

The growing rift between President Clinton and exiled Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide may hasten a long overdue debate on selective political asylum. Last month Aristide broke his long silence on the White House’s punitive policy toward Haitian refugees after the bodies of Haitian women and children were washed ashore in Florida for the second time in recent weeks. Aristide’s anguish is echoed by a growing chorus of African American leaders who believe that Administration policy--especially when compared to the generous treatment of record numbers of mainly white Cubans arriving to these shores--is blatantly hypocritical.

The number of Cubans reaching U.S. shores in 1993 rose 43% over the previous year. Among them were seven who, together with 10 Haitians--all literally in the same boat--sailed to Florida from the Bahamas right before Christmas. Upon arrival, the Cubans were shuttled off to shelter by the Immigration and Naturalization Service while the Haitians were sent to detention facilities.

President Clinton has tried to avoid this issue altogether after shamelessly abandoning his campaign pledge to support poor and politically battered Haitians. A head-on controversy on refugee policy now seems unavoidable.

African American anger grows exponentially with each news story about the contrasting handling of Haitians and Cubans. Jesse Jackson, among others, speaks of Haitians deposited on the docks of Port au Prince while Cubans are feted at Disneyworld.

Cold War Realpolitik is often cited as rationalization for the Cuba/Haiti paradox. Our weapons included the Cuban Adjustment of Act of 1966, which guaranteed political asylum to nearly all Cubans who made it to U.S. shores, even when they admitted the lure of the Miami life-style as the impetus for their escape. In the post-Cold War era, when the INS is charging processing fees to discourage political asylum claims, Cuban immigration policy seems absurd and outdated.

American law regarding Haitians--treating those who flee Haiti’s dictatorship as economic refugees--is equally anachronistic. For all of Fidel Castro’s authoritarianism, no reasonable observer of human rights can point to similar episodes of violence in Cuba comparable to the terrorism occurring in Haiti. Imagine the rightful outcry in the United States if a young, wounded political organizer in Cuba were dragged from his hospital sick bed and hacked to death. Or if a well-known businessman were herded from a church by government henchmen and murdered in broad daylight. It is fair to assume that the United States would contemplate extreme emergency measures, possibly including a massive boatlift, if Cuban pro-government groups burned down an entire neighborhood, and shot, disemboweled and decapitated hundreds of political opponents over a two-year period. All of these things have happened and continue to happen in Haiti since the 1991 coup.

In the absence of a Soviet Bloc military threat, why does the United States prolong this irrational dual policy toward Cubans and Haitians? It is not merely anti-communism. After all, we have growing trade relations with communist China and Vietnam.

Part of the answer is domestic politics. For his campaign pledge to tighten the trade embargo, candidate Clinton received 21% of Cuban votes in November, 1992, a 13% improvement over Michael Dukakis’ numbers in 1988. Today, according to the Miami Herald, Clinton polls among Cuban Americans 10% better than the nation as a whole.

Racism, too, can not be discounted as a factor for the disparate treatment of Cubans and Haitians. For starters, Haitians have been identified, with great exaggeration, as carriers of the HIV virus. And so, on the same beaches where “white” Cubans are greeted with open arms, Haitians are plucked from the surf by police wearing surgical gloves and masks. Cuban emigres are idealized as having “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.” But it is important to point out that recent emigres are promptly assimilated into a community that has been establishing itself for 30 years--and that the early arrivals were largely from the business and professional class. Furthermore, the Cubans’ success was guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers, who have spent more on Cuban refugees than on any other U.S. refugee population.

Anti-Haitian discrimination and politics may explain why the White House remains vigilant on Cuba, yet prevaricates on effective means to end the slaughter in Haiti and the concomitant refugee problem.

President Clinton justifies the repatriation policy as a means of discouraging sea journeys that might result in mass drownings, but Cuban boat people face the same dangers.

President Aristide, having gained little from the White House for his diplomatic silence on Haitian refugees, should now consider convening a national conference to refocus attention on this issue. This would undoubtedly add to Clinton’s discomfort. But presidential embarrassment and threats at the ballot box may be the only means left of forcing an equitable refugee policy in the Caribbean and resolving the political crisis that may yet spark massive political flight from Haiti.